IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v18y2015i6p699-705.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing communications about CCS: three lessons learned

Author

Listed:
  • Wändi Bruine de Bruin
  • Lauren A. Mayer
  • M. Granger Morgan

Abstract

To curb the risks of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change posits that global CO 2 emissions from the energy supply sector must be reduced to 90% below 2010 levels between 2040 and 2070. Electricity generation is the largest contributor to emissions from the energy supply sector. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) holds the promise of helping to reduce CO 2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, as part of a low-carbon portfolio that could also include energy efficiency, natural gas, renewables and nuclear power. To inform people's decisions about whether or not to support the implementation of CCS, our team created brochures about 10 low-carbon technologies as well as a computer tool that helped users to develop technically realistic low-carbon portfolios. Here, we highlight three main lessons we learned in developing these communications about CCS: (1) when learning about CCS people also want to know about other alternatives; (2) using simple wording improves understanding, even about complex technologies; and (3) the time to communicate about CCS is now.

Suggested Citation

  • Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Lauren A. Mayer & M. Granger Morgan, 2015. "Developing communications about CCS: three lessons learned," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 699-705, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:18:y:2015:i:6:p:699-705
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2014.983951
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2014.983951
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2014.983951?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lauren A. Fleishman & Wändi Bruine De Bruin & M. Granger Morgan, 2010. "Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low‐Carbon Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1399-1410, September.
    2. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    3. Wong-Parodi, Gabrielle & Bruine de Bruin, Wändi & Canfield, Casey, 2013. "Effects of simplifying outreach materials for energy conservation programs that target low-income consumers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1157-1164.
    4. Marie-Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Risk perception of mobile communication: a mental models approach," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 599-620, July.
    5. Ragnar Lofstedt, 2015. "Effective risk communication and CCS: the road to success in Europe," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 675-691, June.
    6. Krishnamurti, Tamar & Schwartz, Daniel & Davis, Alexander & Fischhoff, Baruch & de Bruin, Wändi Bruine & Lave, Lester & Wang, Jack, 2012. "Preparing for smart grid technologies: A behavioral decision research approach to understanding consumer expectations about smart meters," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 790-797.
    7. Huijts, Nicole M.A. & Midden, Cees J.H. & Meijnders, Anneloes L., 2007. "Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2780-2789, May.
    8. Downs, Julie S. & Murray, Pamela J. & Bruine de Bruin, Wändi & Penrose, Joyce & Palmgren, Claire & Fischhoff, Baruch, 2004. "Interactive video behavioral intervention to reduce adolescent females' STD risk: a randomized controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(8), pages 1561-1572, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Viebahn & Emile J. L. Chappin, 2018. "Scrutinising the Gap between the Expected and Actual Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage—A Bibliometric Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-45, September.
    2. Pianta, Silvia & Rinscheid, Adrian & Weber, Elke U., 2021. "Carbon Capture and Storage in the United States: Perceptions, preferences, and lessons for policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Nicola Stocco & Francesco Gardona & Fulvio Biddau & Paolo Francesco Cottone, 2021. "Learning Processes and Agency in the Decarbonization Context: A Systematic Review through a Cultural Psychology Point of View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-31, September.
    4. Farid Karimi, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perceptions of Decarbonised Energy System: Insights into Patterns of Behaviour," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-14, November.
    5. Hurlbert, Margot & Osazuwa-Peters, Mac, 2023. "Carbon capture and storage in Saskatchewan: An analysis of communicative practices in a contested technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nick Boase & Mathew White & William Gaze & Clare Redshaw, 2017. "Evaluating the Mental Models Approach to Developing a Risk Communication: A Scoping Review of the Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2132-2149, November.
    2. Lauren A. Fleishman & Wändi Bruine De Bruin & M. Granger Morgan, 2010. "Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low‐Carbon Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1399-1410, September.
    3. Nuortimo, Kalle & Härkönen, Janne, 2018. "Opinion mining approach to study media-image of energy production. Implications to public acceptance and market deployment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 210-217.
    4. Barrios-O’Neill, Danielle & Schuitema, Geertje, 2016. "Online engagement for sustainable energy projects: A systematic review and framework for integration," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1611-1621.
    5. Liu, Bingsheng & Xu, Yinghua & Yang, Yang & Lu, Shijian, 2021. "How public cognition influences public acceptance of CCUS in China: Based on the ABC (affect, behavior, and cognition) model of attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    6. Chou, Jui-Sheng & Gusti Ayu Novi Yutami, I, 2014. "Smart meter adoption and deployment strategy for residential buildings in Indonesia," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 336-349.
    7. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    8. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    9. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    10. Stefania Pighin & Lucia Savadori & Elisa Barilli & Rino Rumiati & Sara Bonalumi & Maurizio Ferrari & Laura Cremonesi, 2013. "Using Comparison Scenarios to Improve Prenatal Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 48-58, January.
    11. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    12. Li, Xilin & Hsee, Christopher K., 2021. "Free-riding and cost-bearing in discrimination," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 80-90.
    13. Abolhosseini, Shahrouz & Heshmati, Almas & Altmann, Jörn, 2014. "A Review of Renewable Energy Supply and Energy Efficiency Technologies," IZA Discussion Papers 8145, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    15. Jie, Yun, 2020. "Responding to requests for help: Effects of payoff schemes with small monetary units," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    16. Charles Changchuan Jiang & Liana Fraenkel, 2017. "The Influence of Varying Cost Formats on Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 17-26, January.
    17. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Gregory, Robin & Arvai, Joseph & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2003. "Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-46, August.
    18. Peggy J. Liu & Kelly L. Haws & Karen Scherr & Joseph P. Redden & James R. Bettman & Gavan J. Fitzsimons, 2019. "The Primacy of “What” over “How Much”: How Type and Quantity Shape Healthiness Perceptions of Food Portions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3353-3381, July.
    19. Chamaret, Cécile & Steyer, Véronique & Mayer, Julie C., 2020. "“Hands off my meter!” when municipalities resist smart meters: Linking arguments and degrees of resistance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    20. Pedro Longart & Eugenia Wickens & Ali Bakir, 2016. "Consumer Decision Process in Restaurant Selection: An Application of the Stylized EKB Model," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 28(2), pages 173-190.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:18:y:2015:i:6:p:699-705. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.